On 10/5/17, Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
>> i think delete-dups is suspicious here. is its only purpose to
>
> Why is delete-dups suspicious? Have you got a very large number of
> refile locations? If so, would it make sense to refine your target
> definitions?
already do that. my fallback "get most things down to a reasonable
level" refile and refile goto were ok until recently. then they
became untenably slow. i can't refine it more without missing stuff
that i need.
> Its purpose, as its name suggests, is to remove duplicate refile
> locations you could get.
so only useful if i set the variable with duplicate stuff?
===
delete-dups seems suspicious but what do i know. i wonder if
cl-delete-duplicates is more efficient.
(defun delete-dups (list)
"Destructively remove `equal' duplicates from LIST.
Store the result in LIST and return it. LIST must be a proper list.
Of several `equal' occurrences of an element in LIST, the first
one is kept."
(let ((tail list))
(while tail
(setcdr tail (delete (car tail) (cdr tail)))
(setq tail (cdr tail))))
list)
